Kate Chaney: By increasing the GST to 15%, we could make the tax system fairer for younger Australians (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 days ago by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/australia@aussie.zone

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 6 points 22 hours ago

This is bad policy for everyone except the high income earners. You can bet that $3300 per year won't be adjusted for inflation and we'll just end up paying more tax.

[-] kingofras@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Jordies is not on board either

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu19s6dmwA0

Quick diagram for those new to politics.

Generating disproportionate levels of money comes from destroying nature.

Politics needs lots of money.

Politicians continually struggle to do anything to protect nature.

[-] Longmactoppedup@aussie.zone 13 points 2 days ago

Oh fuck off Kate.

Any time the "blue ribbon" teals talk about what is good for the economy we must remember that to them "the economy" = rich arseholes yachts. Their constituents are wealthy and economically conservative, and in no way want things to become fair.

So raising the GST will be worse for everyone who works for a living and have negligible effect on those who have accumulated wealth.

[-] makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml 25 points 2 days ago

By stopping the corruption in the mining sector, where politicians give the miners all of our resources tax free, and then get fat jobs with the miners, we could have everything we need and more.

How about we just stop the corruption, and get our free university, hospitals, and everything else like a modern country should.

[-] Davriellelouna@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

By stopping the corruption in the mining sector, where politicians give the miners all of our resources tax free, and then get fat jobs with the miners, we could have everything we need and more

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tried to tax big miners

It didn't end well for him.

👇👇

Former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd says three of the world’s biggest mining multinationals have run sophisticated operations to kill off climate action in Australia and continue to wield day-to-day influence over government through a vast lobbying network and an “umbilical” relationship with the Murdoch media.

“Glencore, Rio [Tinto] and BHP ran sophisticated political operations against my government, both on climate change and the mining tax” he told the Guardian.

“They worked hard … to get rid of the resource super profit tax, against the interests of other mining companies and the national economy as a whole. They worked hard … in 2013 against the carbon price. They succeeded in both enterprises.”

Rudd attributes the day-to-day influence of the sector to two mechanisms. The first is what he describes as the vast lobbying network it uses to pressure political parties. The second is its close relationship with the Murdoch media, which owns most of the country’s print media. Rudd describes the relationship as “umbilical”.

“When did you last see the Murdoch media critical of any of these corporations?” Rudd said. “Rarely. If ever.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/10/mining-firms-worked-kill-off-climate-action-australia-ex-pm-kevin-rudd

______________________________

By the way, nobody is forcing people to read Murdoch media (The Australian / Herald Sun / Daily Telegraph / Courrier Mail / Sky News).

Rupert Murdoch is a criminal but millions of citizens are voluntarily consuming his crap.

[-] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 days ago

Hmmm, the fact that Rudd tried and failed to carry out a difficult but fundamentally positive reform is not a very strong case against pursuing it again in the future, for better or worse political progress is almost always multiple failed attempts punctuated by small iterative steps forward.

The idea that Murdoch's influence is down to the consumers is pretty naive. The Murdoch media is so dominant that it has the capacity to poison every narrative, while one can seek alternative sources those sources struggle financially and can't market themselves to compete effectively. Added to this is the fact that their dominance means that nearly all incidental news exposure will be Murdoch, they are the papers on the stands, they are the news breaks after sports matches, they are favoured by social media algorithms. Not everyone has the time or inclination to put in the substantial daily work to combat this, Murdoch media dominance is a systemic problem, not one of individual choice.

[-] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

The suggestion that there's no excuse not to take a gamble and try again really undersells how bad the LNP is for this country. A decade of Labor would do far more good than properly taxing the mining companies.

I know a lot of terminally online people like to say both sides are the same, and on the headline policies a lot of the time they are, but if you pay attention to the fine details you'll see that the coalition are SO much worse.

[-] node2527@lemy.lol 17 points 2 days ago

What a load of shit. That's not a bold new step... It's a bold-faced lie.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Consumption taxes tax the poor, the most (proportionally). Taxing the poor and corporate whores... Name a more iconic duo!

[-] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 5 points 2 days ago

Remember when governments took bold steps – deregulating the dollar, introducing the [GST]...

Clearly the Australian electorate agrees with Kate and that is why the Australian Democrats are the third largest parliamentary grouping behind Labor and the Coalition.

[-] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 4 points 2 days ago

Yet our GST is among the narrowest and lowest in the OECD. It applies to just 7.5% of the economy, compared with an OECD average of over 11%, and its rate is half the OECD average.

I don't think anyone on the ground level of the OECD is arguing in favour of their higher rates

[-] SteveMicheal@aussie.zone 0 points 1 day ago

The term “velveting shrimp with baking soda” comes from the silky texture that the shrimp (or other proteins) develop after undergoing this process in aussie forum, akin to the texture of velvet fabric. This technique is also used with other proteins like chicken, beef, or pork in Chinese cooking to achieve similar results of tenderizing and sealing in moisture.

[-] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago

Under our model, the GST rate would increase to 15% and exemptions would be removed. To ensure equity, every Australian adult would receive a $3,300 annual payment, effectively making the first $22,000 of spending GST-free. PBO modelling shows this could leave the bottom 60% of income earners better off, even before accounting for the personal income tax cuts enabled by the additional $24bn in revenue.

I whole heartedly support this. Spot on.

[-] Nath@aussie.zone 8 points 2 days ago

I don't believe it. They pitched the GST to us in 1999 as "You'll receive more money in your pay packet and that will offset the 10% GST". Sounds a lot like this.
I was making about $35k in 2000, and that extra money? It amounted to about $18/week. Needless to say, it did not go far at offsetting the 10% on stuff.

From this experience, I learned that governments are like people when it comes to getting paid: Nobody ever asks for a pay cut.
If they're changing tax laws, it's to end up with more money at the end. Taxes are never cut, they're shuffled around in a way to make the government more money.

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 3 points 2 days ago

they're shuffled around in a way to make the government more money.

government is in debt... Where is the money going?

[-] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago

Weird take.

In a democracy, you can see exactly how your tax money is spent.

In the interceding years your income taxes would be much higher if not for GST.

If they're changing tax laws, it's to end up with more money at the end.

In this case, this is true. Quite obviously the intention is to get more money from companies and less from low income earners.

that extra money? It amounted to about $18/week.

In this case, it's $3,300 a year - enough to pay the tax on the first $22k of expenditures. It's right there in the proposal. No one is saying "I support 15% GST in return for a vague hand wavy notion of lower taxes".